Flat Chat Strata Forum Common Property Current Page

  • Creator
  • #64163
    The Hood

    According to Fairfield Council replacing eroded soil from the creek bank (part of the common property) is not a s 106 matter (SSM Act – duty to maintain and repair).
    Plans for the SP show the common property extends to the high tide mark. The bank is without question common property yet the Council seem to think the SSM Act has “no bearing” on this (erosion) issue.

    Council say: “Firstly, importing fill onto a creek bank could be considered development under the provisions of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979, not maintenance. Accordingly, the Strata Schemes Management Act 2015 has no bearing on this issue and an owner’s responsibility under these regulations.”
    Manager Catchment Planning
    Fairfield Council.
    13 July 2022

    Is restoring the common property development?

    EPA Act
    1.5   Meaning of “development”

    (1)  For the purposes of this Act, development is any of the following—

    (a)  the use of land,

    (b)  the subdivision of land,

    (c)  the erection of a building,

    (d)  the carrying out of a work,

    (e)  the demolition of a building or work,

    (f)  any other act, matter or thing that may be controlled by an environmental planning instrument.


    Funny but the EPA Act only uses the word “fill” once and that is in reference to filling a vacancy in the office of a member.

    • This topic was modified 3 weeks, 6 days ago by .
Viewing 6 replies - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • Author
  • #64171

    It’s not uncommon that repair works, whether strata or private dwellings are subject to a DA

    If the council says the fill needs a DA, then it needs a DA.

    If gou go ahead without one, the council can fine you

    Of  course  you can go to the LEC and fight it, but that may not get the result you want and cost you.

    The Hood

    UPDATE: Excavating and fill is considered ‘earthworks’ and any filling beyond dressing or top soil is considered earthworks so that places the ‘work’ to fix the minor slip under the EPA Act and even though s 106 still applies it is not authority to just proceed.
    If only Council could have made it that clear.
    DA is required but the work maybe ‘exempt’ depending on a few other factors.

    The OC under these circumstances is subject to the slow and laborious processes of the local Council.

    “If the council says the fill needs a DA, then it needs a DA.”
    I would never trust a government body to the extent i would do something purely on their say so. They are not that infallible and generally not that competent. No disrespect intended; just saying they too often get it wrong.


    Hi, I’m a bit rusty on this, but water courses do come under environmental and planning legislation and I’m surprised your common property extends that far. Depending on the category of the water course (dependent on it’s size) there is usually a riparian protection zone, with width corresponding to category and size of the water course. And on council LEPs these are usually zoned environmental protection with restrictions on what can be done within the env protection zone. (Incidentally, early in the history of NSW governor King forbade clearing of riparian vegetation because ensuing damage and consequences of removing creek bank vegetation were already evident). I’d look on council LEP and check what it is mapped as, and what is allowed within that zone. Likely, it will need creek bank restoration works. If it’s just a drain, it shouldn’t be too involved, but if it’s an actual creek it might be part of an environmental corridor or a threatened ecological community (very likely in Fairfield) – even very degraded creeks fall under endangered community “Riverflat Forest” which could require native soils, native plants, geo matting, coir logs etc. You may need to hire a bush regeneration company to fix it for you. They are usually fairly cheap. If your building is less than 30 years old, conservation of this area was probably part of the original development consent and may be in the original plans.

    The Hood

    Thanks newb

    It is a 1974 building and the land footprint definitely goes to the mean high water mark.
    The riparian zone is interesting; almost the entire footprint of the SP is in the zone, including the whole building, if the maps are accurate..
    And this is not the only SP in the zone, with the erosion issue.
    A troubled future for those on the flood plain out that way.

    Flame Tree (Qld)

    I can understand Council’s concern. I imagine it’s there to protect the area and the need to ensure the nature of fill will be appropriate. I’m sure you could bury all sorts of nonsense in there that would soon enough give way and wash down stream to become your neighbors concern, and once that horse has bolted good luck.


    @The Hood

    Holy moly. I think you need an environmental consultant to sort this one out. They should be able to find a quick solution for you.

    If the riparian zone is that big the creek must be fairly large?

    Yep any soil brought in would need to be local unpolluted, and a bush regen team could do stabilisation works (geomatting, terracing, gabion baskets, planting native tubestock, fairly cheaply).

Viewing 6 replies - 1 through 6 (of 6 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Flat Chat Strata Forum Common Property Current Page